You guys act like immature elementary kids. Making fun and every little thing. And I guess that makes you feel good about yourself. You would have had a ball making fun of Moses and Claudia I. Heck, you'd make fun of Jesus and plot to kill him just like the Jewish religious leaders of His day. I would hope that I would follow such a controversial figure if I was privileged to live at that time.

Did you see the video? if not you should watch it. The former governor was exceedingly pleased with what he had said. And i am not sure what you are so twitchy about, hell i even agreed with him.

As for the Jesus analogy, Bush doesn't even come close to Jesus. And let me just say that i am a Christian and even though you may reject Jesus' teaching of feeding thepoor in favor of the pagan teaching a man to fish is no reason to detract from jesus by comparing him to Bush.

Why don't you take a second to realize that it's actually very funny. No matter who had said that, people with a sense of humour would be laughing. There's no rule or law that says that "Just because he's the US President, we can't laugh at him."

You need to grow up. Or wallow in your dark little corner where laughter is forbidden. Whichever.

Paul was not comparing Bush to Jesus or you to anybody else. You people are a bunch of complete idiots. If Kerry does win this election (which he won't) what are you bunch of douchebags going to whine about next?? I am sure you will find something.

Thanks Ed and you are correct. My point was they would make fun of anyone they do not like. If these guys were still living with mommy and daddy they would get a spanking for the stuff they say. Unless they had parents that did not discipline.

First of all, it would be funny no matter who said it. But it does not surprise me that Bush is the idiot who did say it.

And Paul - I don't see Jesus running around saying things like "The Jewish leaders or the Roman leaders are always thinking up ways to hurt the people and so am I" And if Jesus had been a president, somehow I think he would have been a Democrat - if only because he would work for a smaller military.

And Ed - First of all, I've never heard a douchebag whine. Secondly, I don't care who wins the election - as long as it isn't Bush. All presidents make mistakes that are poked fun at. That isn't whining - that's called having a sense of humor. Look at JFK "I am a jelly doughnut" and he was beloved by many - people still laughed because it was funny. Just because this site has a talent for pointing out the worst of the Bush Administration doesn't mean that we are whining. Isn't it important to be aware of what our government is doing? No matter who the president is. Government is suppose to be run by the people - not a bunch of politicians. And how can we make sure we have the governement we want if we are not aware of what they are doing? It's easy to elect a government and then sit around with your thumb up your ass and let them run your life. I prefer to be aware of what they are saying and doing and try to make changes. That's not whining, that's active citizenship. And if I get a laugh out of it now and then, what's wrong with that?

Jesus would be neither a Democrat nor a Republican because both parties promote sin and he could have no part of that. Jesus would definitely not be a Democrat because He spoke of marriage between a man and woman only and there is of course, the whole abortion issue. I have friends who have made the comment "How can one be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time?" I disagree with that but many feel that way. Bush's remark is not funny because I know what he was trying to say. This is funny - "It depends on what the meaning of is is."

> I don't care who wins the election as long as it isn't Bush

That is so true of you liberal Bush-hating Dems. You would vote for Hitler because it would be Anyone But Bush. And don't deny your statement now! You guys criticized us for Clinton-bashing but you guys are so much worse.

"Why," he asked, "are Kerry and the DNC imploding on religion? Because too many of the elites running the show are devout secularists who put a premium on freedom from religion. Their idea of religious liberty is banning nativity scenes on public property. Their idea of diversity is censoring ‘under God’ from the Pledge. Their idea of tolerance is forbidding a moment of silence in the schools. Their idea of a good Catholic is Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice. Their idea of compassion is hiking taxes. Their idea of helping the poor is giving them directions to a soup kitchen. And their idea of choice is abortion, not school vouchers."

Paul, good to be here. Been busy having a baby. He manages to keep me busy. But not so busy that I don't keep up with what's going on in the world I brought him into. Now....

I will nod at your accuracy here. I did make some sweeping statements that I won't deny. I don't think that Jesus would be a Democrat. But I do stand by the fact that the press, Bush's press managers and many others have spent much of their time correcting the worst of Bush's incorrect statements. Say what you mean and mean what you say. As for what Jesus says about gay marriage - give me some quotes. I've read the bible. I don't recall Jesus saying anything about it. But even if you do offer me bible quotes, I can throw others at you that will refute it. That's the great thing about the bible. Not only was it written by man, but it is completely open to interpretation. While I am not a Christian, my husband is. And a Democrat to boot. And he has his own way of looking at the world. But that's a whole other story.

My whole point being - Bush has made so many obscure,inaccurate,confusing,misleading, outlandish, half-true statements that it's hard to tell what he means. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that I'm a democrat - it has to do with the fact that I'm an educated adult who has no idea what the President is babbling about most of the time. I neither trust the Bush Administration nor the media that covers most of it. I feel that we are not only being mislead, but lied to by our government and the media. And any administration that made me feel that way, in my eyes, would be a bad administration.

As for my other statement about not caring who got elected - you have me there again. I do care who is elected. It was a rather sweeping statement and my only defense is that I am a new mom who hasn't slept in two days. I do try to avoid making emotional statements that I can't support. I humbly apologize for speaking without thought of what I was saying. However, I do feel that there are many, many, many more capable, worthy, intelligent choices for president and I will do whatever I can to make sure that one of them gets into the position of President this election.

One more while we are on the topic of religion. A Rabbi is concerend that the Democratic Party has yet to say they support Israel or even say a kind words about Israel. He makes an interesting comment:

I'm considering you an answer to my prayers. I was *just* going to point out that there aren't enough women on this blog and there you are, post-delivery, and very eloquent I might add.

Paul,

That's twice now that you bring up abortion and gay marriages. Let's talk about this.

I'm finding more and more what the difference between liberals and conservatives is. It's not that they have different beliefs, because you'll rarely find two people who will agree on every issue.

Liberals have their beliefs but also respect other points of view. Mostly, they think that everyone is entitled to their opinion and would like everyone to live harmoniously (meaning, nobody is imposing their beliefs on anyone else). You do what you want, and I'll do what I want. As long as we don't hurt each other.

Conservatives not only have their beliefs, but they want everyone to be/think like them. They can't accept that others have different upbringings, opinions and points of view. They impose their beliefs on others.

Example: Abortion. Since I don't want to speak on anyone's behalf, I'll talk about myself. I don't necessarily support abortion, nor do I think people should be aborting left right and center. I do , however understand that there may be cases where people would have to abort. In that case, I don't want a rich, white, MALE politician, telling me what I can and can't do with my body, or dictating the choice I have to make.

Same with gay marriage. I'm not gay. But that doesn't mean I should do everything in my power to stop gay people from leading normal lives. I respect gay people and if they want to get married, that's not going to harm ME in any way. Let them get married. They're human too!

But you, as a conservative, don't consider humans to be equal . Obviously a gay man or woman is less of a human that a straight person.

Congratulations! Thanks for your kind and thoughtful response. You sound like a sweet person! My wife and I could not kids. You are blessed!

I will try to be as thoughtful in my reply.

Jesus never did denounce homosexuality. He said he came “not to CHANGE the law, but to FULFILL (complete) the law.” That means that the LAW was to stay on the books (laws like homosexuality and incest and adultery being sin and wrong). It also means that the LAW condemns. He came to save us from the LAW. We are saved by His GRACE. Jesus also did not denounce wife-beating or child abuse either. Does that mean that wife-beating and child-abuse are ok? Of course not! He did say this about marriage in Matthew 19:

19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
19:4 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he (God) which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

These verses above are quite clear that from the very beginning, it was marriage between a male and female and no divorce.

Yes, the Bible was written by 40+ people but the Old Testament was God-inspired while the New Testament was God-breathed. Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament under God's direction. God became flesh in the form of Jesus and walked the earth (John Ch. 1) and that is why the New Testament is God-breathed. God was actually physically on earth and taught his followers the way to salvation. When you read the Bible, you should pray that the Holy Spirit (sent by God after Jesus left the earth) to direct you in its meaning. Now, the Catholic Church disagrees with that because they believe that only the “Church” can interpret the Scriptures. That is another topic for another day. However, I agree with the Catholic Church and their stance on homosexuality, abortion, etc. Why? Because they are right!

I am not comparing Bush to Moses or Claudius I, but both of these two had speech problems/impediments and they were great leaders. Great leaders do not have to be great orators.

I disagree that Bush is lying to us. I believe that many are lying to us about Bush lying to us, therefore, everything Bush now says is a lie to the ones who believe he is lying.

Here is a wonderful verse from Psalms 139 for your baby and for “life.”

139:13 For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.
139:14 I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well.
139:15 My frame was not hidden from thee, When I was made in secret, [And] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
139:16 Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, [Even] the days that were ordained [for me], When as yet there was none of them.

I believe that life is precious. I believe that life is sacred. I believe that if you take someone's life, you deserve to lose your own. Ok, with that in mind, abortion is killing an innocent life. I understand that a woman may need an abortion for health reasons. However, abortions are mainly to get rid of a problem, an inconvenience. You made your choice already by sleeping with the guy.

And, since life is precious, if a person kills someone, the victim’s family or the state should have the legal option to use the death penalty - and they currently do. A murderer is a non-innocent person, unlike an unborn baby.

Homosexuality - it is not normal. It is a behavioral problem and should not be promoted. However, I do not care what they do in the bedroom. Homosexuals currently can live together and work and buy houses and do all kinds of things. Have some kind of civil union (I do not like that either), but marriage is historically from the beginning of time, between a man and a woman. A marriage license is a legal document. I just do not think that one's daughter-in-law should be someone's brother.

The government can tell you what you can and cannot do to your body. They can tell you to wear a seatbelt when you drive. They can arrest you for public intoxication. They can tell you not to use illegal drugs. These things do not hurt anyone either. More later – gotta run!!!!

But, Johanna, please don't confuse Paul with a "conservative". He is --- if anything --- a Fake Conservative. One who claims to be Conservative, but then advocates anything but Conservative policies. Like Bush. Using the rhetorical popularity of the word "conservative" to give them impression that he is one. He and Paul (and so many others) give real Conservatives (the few who are left, perhaps like Teddy) a bad name.

Beyond that, I'll just point out only two of Paul's abhorrent and bigotted comments (and I'll ignore the fact that his "words of God" bible also allows for Slavery, and that according to his own logic, I'm sure he's against interracial marriage, since it defied the "historical tradition" of marriage between a man and a woman of the same race. But somehow, since it's not popular these days to oppose that, he'll let it slide).

I'll just point out these two quotes from Paul, the Jew Hater and divisive racist:

you'd make fun of Jesus and plot to kill him just like the Jewish religious leaders of His day.

That is untrue. Men and women are created equal. However, their roles are different. A father has different roles than a mother and a husband has different roles than a wife. I am not talking about different jobs here, just different roles. Women are better mothers than men and men are better fathers than women. Sounds corny but that is common sense.

A child needs a mother and a father, not two mommy's or two daddy's.

Conservatives and Liberals want everyone to live in harmony, we just disagree on how to do it. Laws should be based on right and wrong. Conservatives and Liberals have different definitons of right and wrong.

I should also mention that since Paul seems only capable of reading news sources where he'll find stuff he agrees with, whether true or not (Newsmax.com), I guess it's little wonder he's seemingly so uneducated about what's actually going on in the world. I'll hope that any Liberals here would not follow that same example! And are sure to read what the Righties are selling you! Of course, given the preponderance of Mainstream Media's Conservative bent, there really is little choice for the average joe now is there?

> you'd make fun of Jesus and plot to kill him just like the Jewish religious leaders of His day

I am not a Jew-hater divisive Brad. You guys do make fun of Jesus (and the religious beliefs of Bush) and you take His name in vain with your profanity, especially Jaime.

Just because God allowed something like slavery or polygamy in the Bible, does not mean that He is for it. Slavery has been around since the beginning of time and America finally put it in the ground, where it belongs. My family fought for the North. Lincoln was also called the "worst president ever" by his enemies. Democrats were mainly the southern slave owners.

Jaime was simply quoting your "Vice-President" Dick "Fucking" Cheney. So I'd think you'd support Jaime's comments. I'm sure, like Dick, he "feels better" after saying that to you. And feeling better, obviously as we are taught by the "Veep" is the most important thing.

As to Slavery, the teachings of the bible explain when and how we should stone and/or kill our Slaves. But you seem to avoid that part of the Bible because you don't care for it. Picking and choosing as a hypocrite as usual. And subtly posting anti-Jewish rhetoric in the bargain.

Because you chose to quote a Rabbi saying those words, would seem to indicate you are in favor of them.

Are you denouncing them instead? (Sadly, I'll likely be on the road in a few minutes, and unable to respond, but I'm sure others will).

Paul, I appreciate that you own up to how you feel about such complex matters, but your reasoning still leaves me baffled. You just wrote, 'I believe that life is precious. I believe that life is sacred. I believe that if you take someone's life, you deserve to lose your own', and 'The government can tell you what you can and cannot do...These things do not hurt anyone either.'

By your rationale, should we execute our president then? Or his administration? What about the soldiers in the Middle East who are fighting for the President, or the Administration? If taking one's life=losing one's own, we need to begin preparations for mass American executions. Perhaps public beheadings, so we can support our troops by slaughtering them for a job well done, or hangings and torturings in the town square? Why not? Besides an eye for an eye, the government told them to! And a murderer is a non-innocent person, which they so clearly are --- murderers, and accessories to murder.

You blame liberals for arguing with emotion, yet your entire point is emotional. The only factual evidence implied in your post re: abortion you agreed with, that a woman may need an abortion for health reasons. Your point of view is all from the gut.

The truth is questions of morality and immorality are grey: abortion and gay marriage are just two of the hotter ones. There is no one best way, so you may as well begin governing by erring on the side of openness, equality and reality. It leaves more room for those inconsistencies, that extreme Conservatives seem to regularly disregard when championing a cause, to breathe and find what works. From there more intelligent regulation can begin. Of course reasonable people don't want women to run out and get abortions as simply as using birth control (most reasonable people grapple with the morality of abortion either way). Nor do people want folks on welfare to abuse the system. But it does happen, and not dealing with it or pretending to deal with it by not dealing with it aren't satisfactory answers. Women will abort their children Paul, regardless of how you emotionally feel about it. So let's create legislation based on reality, not based on our feelings of what should be. Then we can to teach and guide based on what we think should be, pushing for our ideals.

Further, when you speak of homosexuality you make the claim that 'it is a behavioral problem'. Besides that you have no facts to back that up, and that there is emerging evidence to the contrary, this is an argument I have never understood. Why would anyone go out of their way to make a choice that would subject them to all sorts of bigotry, ostracization, and inequalities? That would force them to worry about driving through certain states, like yours, and fear speaking publicly about their private lives? This idea also that they are somehow not 'normal' also reveals you have no case, as normal is contextual and not something you can classify, though Conservatives love to try. At a black panther party, you would decidedly be not normal.

I'm glad however to hear that you would support a civil union between homosexuals, even if you disagreed morally with it. It seems the logical allowance for couples that have made a long-term commitment to each other. Otherwise it is discrimination. We have enough problems with universal and affordable health care, let's not abuse our citizens further. As to whether man and woman should be joined under God only, I disagree but that is a battle specific for someone else who shares in your religion and beliefs. Hopefully the Church will eventually be persuaded to reason over belief, but that's why they are separate from the state, to prevent legislation without tactile argument.

Bryan pretty much took most of my words out of my mouth (although much nicer than I would've put it), but aI'd like to point out a few more things.

"Men and women are created equal. However, their roles are different."

I was talking about gay and straight people being equal in any case. Not men and women.

"Women are better mothers than men and men are better fathers than women. Sounds corny but that is common sense."

Okay. You're talking about gay adoption here I think, not gay marriage. But that being said, here's my response.

Absolutely untrue. Some women beat their children. They are unfit mothers. Some men beat their children. They are unfit fathers. You can't generalize. Many gay couples are MUCH more fit to be parents than many straight couples.

"A child needs a mother and a father, not two mommy's or two daddy's."

No. A child needs love. That's it. They need loving guardians. Some children's parents have passed away and they live with their single aunt. Happily. There are exceptions to every rule.

"Conservatives and Liberals want everyone to live in harmony, we just disagree on how to do it"

Again. No. Living in harmony would be letting people live their lives the way they see fit. Paul, some people think religion is evil. But you don't see them trying to push laws and illegalize all religion , do you?

"I believe that life is precious. I believe that if you take someone's life, you deserve to lose your own."

You're full of shit. I'm sorry. I had to be honest. You don't actually believe this because you're ok with your President killing innocent people (remember our other conversation when I was asking you the questions that made you feel stupid?).

"Ok, with that in mind, abortion is killing an innocent life."

Look. Paul. *sigh*

Abortion in most cases can be prevented. What's more important in this world, is educating people on safe sex and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

But should some irrational and stupid woman, go and get knocked up, then drink her sorrows away, then I believe that for LOVE of that poor unborn child, I would rather spare his/her life before the fact then bring it into this already cruel world, with the added bonus of having fetal alcohol syndrome and being born to an alcoholic mother. That's just ONE example.

"However, abortions are mainly to get rid of a problem, an inconvenience. You made your choice already by sleeping with the guy."

Do you believe in pre-marital sex? I'm curious.

"Homosexuality - it is not normal. It is a behavioral problem and should not be promoted".

Oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... Someone's sexual preference is NOT a behavioural problem. Liking dark or blond hair is not a behavioural problem. Liking tall or shot is not a behavioural problem. Liking a feminine man or a masculine woman..not a behavioural problem. Liking a man instead of a woman, not a problem. It's a preference. Plain and simple. Just like how you like chocolate over vanilla. You should not be treated like an outcast because you prefer something.

"I just do not think that one's daughter-in-law should be someone's brother."

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, you're not entitled to force everyone to think the same way.

"The government can tell you what you can and cannot do to your body."

Really? So should they illegalize women getting earings? What about tattoos? Or plastic surgery?

i think you have a lot on your plate with everyone here. i really hate to mention this but i want to ask you to refrain from quoting the Holy Bible. You have felt quite comfortable in rejecting Jesus' words to feed the hungry and affirm instead a pagan cliche about teaching people to fish. You cant pivk and choose Paul.

Yes - we are to feed the poor. The ones who cannot feed themselves. I have already said that. I have cooked for a soup kitchen. I have been to Mexico on a Medical missionary trip. I give people money all of the time who need it. I buy homeless people lunch. I brought a homeless person home for dinner and gave me him some money.

You and I just disagree on whether the government should feed the people or not or how it should be done. And, the fish analogy was about different political beliefs - giving food to everyone (communism/socialism/liberalism) or working for your food (liberty/freedom/conservatism). The Bible is all about working. God worked when he created the earth and he rested on the 7th day. Adam and Eve worked in the Garden before they were cast out. The Bible has a ton to say about working, money, and helping other people. That is an individual thing.

The argument about giving Bush the death penalty is nonsense because war does change the rules. Innocent people are killed in war accidentally for various reasons. Me killing you on purpose is different. Bush is not intentionally killing innocent people on purpose. Hitler intentionally killed 6 million Jews.

I can quote that Bible if I want to. I can quote the Old Testament where it says men should not have sex with men, women should not have sex with women, a brother should not have sex with his sister, man should not have sex with an animal, a son should not have sex with his mother, a daughter should not have sex with her father. It's all there in the first 5 books of the Old Testament, widely believed to be written by Moses. Also, Romans Ch. 1 has a lot to say about it. I know all of the homosexual arguments about the Bible being misinterpreted, blah blah blah. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot quote?

'The argument about giving Bush the death penalty is nonsense...'
Of course it's nonsense, as was your argument on abortion. It's just your 'feeling' on the matter, but you have no tangible grounds on which to base your view. I would be interested to see polls that show how non-married, non-Christian American women view abortion. You speak loudly, but for a very specific portion of America Paul, and a gender that you are not a part of either. If you had anything credible to support your opinion, it might influence someone.

'Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot quote?'
Wow, I feel for you man. Inhibiting personal freedoms, is like, such a downer. So you post whatever quotes you want Paul, don't let those jerk liberals stop your right to choose!

You know what the chip on my shoulder is Paul. That people like you, who bury your head in a single book, claims to have the inside track on the eternal. The after life is so much greater than anything YOU'VE ever been taught. Than any of us have.

Neither Republicans or self appointed "family values Christian Conservatives" own Jesus or spirituality. Your deliberate melding of church and state is dangerous.

BTW I know you eat the right wing propaganda of the welfare/ crack mother, but do you consider yourself a welfare recipient working for a bankrupt company?

Sorry but i believe what is good for me as a person, that i am obliged to feed the poor, clothe the naked and so forth, is good for the nation as a whole. i am sorry if you think so little of the faith that you don't think its principles are good for us all.

This is the final reply from Paul and myself. We will check this board in November and comment on Bush's victory or unlikely defeat. Until then whine amongst yourselves. Do not bother commenting to us as we will not be checking the board.

Unable to defend your points of view? So you apparently decided to quit? Sounds about right. Head on over to FreeRepublic! You can say all you like without challenge! Or join the Bush-Cheney administration and do what you want in secret with nobody to give you an opposing view.

Paul and Ed, you are valuable contributors here. I'm sorry to see that you chose not to stick up for what you feel is right. But given what you've chosen to stick up for, and the lack of substance you seem to hvae to back up these "points of view", I guess stopping when you can't defend them, is likely a good idea for you.

i dont think for one minute you wont read this. How is it a misread? YOU claimed one thing for yourself and another for the public good. Its precisely what you wrote. You reject real Christianity, the Christianity of giving as a principle of civilization.

Well, I can say I'm saddened by the loss of Ed and Paul. I was putting together a thoughtful and well written response to Paul's biblical battle. It is sad that they won't stick around and debate the issues. But then, I guess if they aren't up to it, they have the 'freedom' to leave. They will be missed.

I've only lurked here for a couple of days but have noticed here, and other places that when you get a conservative contibution to a post that points out something bad about the president, they have a tendancy to steer the topic to a different (less relevant) issue.

Now, I personaly enjoy fighting the arguments that they just never get (abortion, gay marriage). I don't know why, maybe I'm a sadist.

The point is that the president said something stupid AGAIN. I know what he meant to say, but the fact that his tiny little pea brain can't figure it out until its already out there. Is it funny? Hell yeah, its hilarious. Is it scary as well? Very!

All the other stuff is just to distract you from the original point that W is a moron.

Good to hear another voice, Matt. I think in some ways you are right about the changing of topic. I also agree with you about the moron comment But that shouldn't be surprising with me being a "bleeding heart liberal" :p But I would like some conservatives to pop in here and give a good arguement. One of the reasons I kept coming back was because Paul kept the debating interesting. However, I will keep coming back because it's a good place to hear about What's going on in the world of W. Brad's got a great site here. And in his place, the others are doing a great job too. So I'll be back, just wish Paul would finish what he started here.

It's a shame you have opted to step away, though intuition tells me you won't go far. In any case, thanks for the (mostly) healthy debate. I can say rather plainly that I agreed with little you offered, but appreciated your fervor all the same.

I hope the time away allows you to reflect on some of the tenets you swiftly disregarded as liberal rhetoric. There were some great points brought up on all sides, and it would be a waste if emotion overrode thoughtful conversation. Find some well-reasoned conservatives and bring them with you when you return!